New Logic for Auto-pairing and Seek Graph! - Chess Forums - Page 4

Jimmykay

Jul 17, 2014

0

#61

YANQUI_UXO wrote:

Ok, but I feel a little discriminated (all lower rated players). Well, I guess that's just that, accept it or die :)

Whatever, it's just a way to make people pay.

yes, they are running a business here.

I also am shocked to hear that players would use a range like -25/+200. Being willing to player higher but not lower players is selfish, and yes, if this is your range, it is GOOD that you are now waiting longer.

My range is -400/+400.

bertmanxxx

Jul 17, 2014

0

#62

05jogrady wrote:

My next question is, Why are there not hundreds of people complaining about this??? Do they care or is it just us few and we are going to have to put up with this??? Why would this site do this??? And what can we do about it?????? Why couldnt they just leave it as it was??? The old system was so much better.

Because this is a text book case of bad change management.Probably no A / B testing, and not data driven, just someone had a hunch that this was problem, maybe it bothered the founder's wife whenever she plays so it became a priority for the devs.

Even as a keen user for several years and with thousands of games it took me a while to find the forum post. In my line of work with a multinational company, the countries with high consumer complaints we do well because we find quality problems and fix them and the people who complained acutally gave us a chance, the countries where consumers just throw away the product and don't buy again are a problem because we just find sales die and have to exit without knowing why.

YANQUI_UXO

Jul 17, 2014

0

#63

Jimmykay wrote:

YANQUI_UXO wrote:

Ok, but I feel a little discriminated (all lower rated players). Well, I guess that's just that, accept it or die :)

Whatever, it's just a way to make people pay.

yes, they are running a business here.

I also am shocked to hear that players would use a range like -25/+200. Being willing to player higher but not lower players is selfish, and yes, if this is your range, it is GOOD that you are now waiting longer.

My range is -400/+400.

Before all this started, I had as custom settings anybody from 1200 to 1800 (my rating is 1500 approximately) in bullett. Which is the only time control i play since on the internet I don't like to play longer games for a couple of reasons.

Now, I only play "my" people, because to wait 2 or more minutes to play a 1 min game sounds a little stupid doesn't it :)

Jimmykay

Jul 17, 2014

0

#64

YANQUI_UXO wrote:

Jimmykay wrote:

YANQUI_UXO wrote:

Ok, but I feel a little discriminated (all lower rated players). Well, I guess that's just that, accept it or die :)

Whatever, it's just a way to make people pay.

yes, they are running a business here.

I also am shocked to hear that players would use a range like -25/+200. Being willing to player higher but not lower players is selfish, and yes, if this is your range, it is GOOD that you are now waiting longer.

My range is -400/+400.

Before all this started, I had as custom settings anybody from 1200 to 1800 (my rating is 1500 approximately) in bullett. Which is the only time control i play since on the internet I don't like to play longer games for a couple of reasons.

Now, I only play "my" people, because to wait 2 or more minutes to play a 1 min game sounds a little stupid doesn't it :)

I don't see your point. What range do you use? I also play only 1 0 bullet, and never wait more than 2 SECONDS for a game.

I find it hard to believe that if you have a 1200/1800 min max that you are waiting 2 minutes for a game.

YANQUI_UXO

Jul 17, 2014

0

#65

No no, I have to wait 2 minutes IF i want to play a higher rated or lower rated player - that's what I meant when saying that I only play "my" people (approximately same rating as me). If I understand correctly that's precisely why we have this new sistem, to play more or less only people equal to you... I can put the range 900-2500 but it will always give me a 1550-1620 opponent...

DeepGreene

Jul 17, 2014

0

#66

Jimmykay wrote:

YANQUI_UXO wrote:

Ok, but I feel a little discriminated (all lower rated players). Well, I guess that's just that, accept it or die :)

Whatever, it's just a way to make people pay.

yes, they are running a business here.

I also am shocked to hear that players would use a range like -25/+200. Being willing to player higher but not lower players is selfish, and yes, if this is your range, it is GOOD that you are now waiting longer.

My range is -400/+400.

I don't understand the payment part? The functionality of automated pairing isn't different based on your membership type.

Guys, just to be clear, it isn't mandatory to put anything in those Min/Max fields. The pairing algorithm should always find you a better match than +/- 400 — even if you leave min/max blank.

Jimmykay

Jul 17, 2014

0

#67

Is that SO different than before? Despite having a 400 point range, I rarely played anyone more than 150 points higher or lower than me anyway.

Spend the $0.17/day for a Platinum membership and play in all the open tournaments you want.

They are running a business here. It is not a UN supported social service, providing free chess to the world.

YANQUI_UXO

Jul 17, 2014

0

#68

Of course it is not a big deal but when I didn't know about the change I thought my connection sucked because I had too wait so much time to get a game - now that I know why, I go with the flow ;-)

YANQUI_UXO

Jul 17, 2014

0

#69

Jimmykay wrote:

Is that SO different than before? Despite having a 400 point range, I rarely played anyone more than 150 points higher or lower than me anyway.

Spend the $0.17/day for a Platinum membership and play in all the open tournaments you want.

They are running a business here. It is not a UN supported social service, providing free chess to the world.

I don't understand the animosity, dear Jimmy!

Jimmykay

Jul 17, 2014

0

#70

DeepGreene wrote:

Jimmykay wrote:

YANQUI_UXO wrote:

Ok, but I feel a little discriminated (all lower rated players). Well, I guess that's just that, accept it or die :)

Whatever, it's just a way to make people pay.

yes, they are running a business here.

I also am shocked to hear that players would use a range like -25/+200. Being willing to player higher but not lower players is selfish, and yes, if this is your range, it is GOOD that you are now waiting longer.

My range is -400/+400.

I don't understand the payment part? The functionality of automated pairing isn't different based on your membership type.

Guys, just to be clear, it isn't mandatory to put anything in those Min/Max fields. The pairing algorithm should always find you a better match than +/- 400 — even if you leave min/max blank.

I was responding to his statement "Whatever, it's just a way to make people pay.", so I assume this question is not directed at me, but at Yanqui? Please clarify, thanks.

I am not sure why you are including me in the quote, and not just the original.

Jimmykay

Jul 17, 2014

0

#71

YANQUI_UXO wrote:

Jimmykay wrote:

Is that SO different than before? Despite having a 400 point range, I rarely played anyone more than 150 points higher or lower than me anyway.

Spend the $0.17/day for a Platinum membership and play in all the open tournaments you want.

They are running a business here. It is not a UN supported social service, providing free chess to the world.

I don't understand the animosity, dear Jimmy!

There was no animosity, I am sorry you misinterpreted me.

I am making a friendly suggestion that if you were to pay for a membership, you would have access to play in open tournaments and would thus be able to play "up" alot.

DeepGreene

Jul 17, 2014

0

#72

No worries. I originally didn't get the angle about the premium availability of open tournaments. I dig it now. :)

Jimmykay

Jul 17, 2014

0

#73

DeepGreene wrote:

I dig it now. :)

You must be from the 1970's!

ElKitch

Jul 17, 2014

0

#74

For long time controls this can be a bit of a problem.. if they dont show up on the seekbar people will even less likely select them. Perhaps do show games that are longer than 15/10?

DeepGreene

Jul 17, 2014

0

#75

Jimmykay wrote:

DeepGreene wrote:

I dig it now. :)

You must be from the 1970's!

Those were good times. :)

DeepGreene

Jul 17, 2014

0

#76

ElKitch wrote:

For long time controls this can be a bit of a problem.. if they dont show up on the seekbar people will even less likely select them. Perhaps do show games that are longer than 15/10?

I see long seeks (even stuff like 120 | 30) at the far right side of the Seek Graph. Do you not?

ElKitch

Jul 17, 2014

0

#77

Havent checked, but I thought standard seeks like 30/0 are no longer shown.

sahistuprocesu

Jul 17, 2014

0

#78

Tnx

Infinite_Zero

Jul 17, 2014

0

#79

i was having trouble finding a seek and asked the help desk, this is what i got when i asked if resigning from a lost position counts as abandonment;

CyberSensei: no, aborting or closing your window is abandonment.

Infinite_Zero: then why do i even have the option to abort?

Chess.com staff and moderators are unable to assist you at the moment. Please consult the Live Chess FAQ for answers to many common questions, or search our help page.

Infinite_Zero: what would you call it other than tyranny or abuse of power? if any one would answer these questions i will be very gratefull

i also stated that the nazi's strong armed the system because they felt it benificial to the general population.

radmagichat

Jul 17, 2014

0

#80

Personally I like the new system better. Makes the challenges more fair. It sucks selecting a certain rating that wish to play and you find out your opponents way under rated due to 95% of their games being against higher rated opponents kicking them down a peg or two. Imagine how unfair it would be if your opponent is actually 400 points higher then you wanted but you are playing them under false pretenses. You go to play a 900 rated player because you are about 900 and you want to test out your new skills against a fair challenge, when all of the sudden you get paired up with someone who is rated 900 with the strength of 1400... very discouraging stuff to deal with. I understand that some people don't really care that much about rated games or what their rating is.. other people spend hours trying to achieve the impossible by improving a few points. If rating didn't matter.. everyone would just play unrated games and tactics. Just a thought :)